Re: multi billion row tables: possible or insane?

From: John Arbash Meinel <john(at)arbash-meinel(dot)com>
To: "Vig, Sandor (G/FI-2)" <Sandor(dot)Vig(at)audi(dot)hu>
Cc: "'pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: multi billion row tables: possible or insane?
Date: 2005-03-01 15:52:12
Message-ID: 42248FAC.2010103@arbash-meinel.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-performance

Vig, Sandor (G/FI-2) wrote:

>385 transaction/sec?
>
>fsync = false
>
>risky but fast.
>
>

I think with a dedicated RAID10 for pg_xlog (or possibly a battery
backed up ramdisk), and then a good amount of disks in a bulk RAID10 or
possibly a good partitioning of the db across multiple raids, you could
probably get a good enough tps.

But you're right, fsync=false could certainly give you the performance,
though a power outage means potential *real* corruption. Not just
missing transactions, but duplicated rows, all sorts of ugliness.

John
=:->

In response to

Browse pgsql-performance by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andras Kadinger 2005-03-01 15:54:42 Re: multi billion row tables: possible or insane?
Previous Message amrit 2005-03-01 15:46:02 What is the postgres sql command for last_user_id ???